W. Tracy Parnell

From Hargrove's "Marines Corps and Soviet Union" page: Throughout the summer of 1959 HARVEY Oswald continued to promote communism and anything and everything Russian to fellow marines. On September 4, HARVEY Oswald applied for a passport in Santa Ana, California. But the passport contained a photo of LEE Oswald--not HARVEY. If this photo is compared with a photo taken of HARVEY Oswald a week later, standing next to Robert Oswald, you can see they are two different people. The caption for the photo of LHO and Robert says "Grainy 1959 photo of Harvey standing next to Robert Oswald". But this photo is a screen grab from the "Biography" show on Oswald. This was apparently a composite made by the producers in order to show the brothers together (for purposes of illustration) even though they weren't. The original shown in Robert's book is not grainy at all and perfectly clear. What could be the reason for using this "grainy" version of the photo? Could it be that using the grainy photo makes it more likely the reader will think they are looking at two different individuals? That could also explain why Armstrong showed a poor quality photo of Marguerite standing in front of a sink and wearing a nightgown to witnesses to represent the "imposter" Marguerite and used a better quality photo taken at the shoe store to represent the "tall beautiful" Marguerite. http://wtracyparnell.com/using-photos-to-misrepresent/

Thanks Paul, appreciate the answer and I am sure 2017 will be of interest to all.

Steve Gaal wrote: this post unaddressed by ANTI H & L side Speaking of unaddressed issues, when is the H&L team going to address the 1981 exhumation? Oswald or "Harvey" according to H&L was dug up and he had a mastoid operation that he wasn't supposed to have. Also, in Russia "Harvey" was examined by doctors and again he had the mastoid scar that wasn't supposed to be there (CE 985). Armstrong just ignores this in H&L. Paul Groody had a theory about what happened. For years, I didn't realize this-I just thought Groody was playing devil's advocate and saying something was not right. Then I listened to his 2006 appearance of Coast to Coast and it turns out he thought the head only was switched prior to the exhumation. Now Groody was always adamant that the body was the one he buried in 1963 as he recognized the clothes, rings and even the viscera bag which contained the internal organs. But he believed the body was that of a double (who had been shot by Ruby) and had been dug up (even though he said in 1963 it would be almost impossible to do that) at some point and the real Oswald's head (which was somehow readily available) was somehow reattached to the double's body. This explained, in Groody's mind, the fact that he didn't see the craniotomy incision on the skull (even though photos show it and witnesses remember it), rather than his own mistaken memory. This is all detailed here: http://wtracyparnell.com/paul-groodys-theory/ But the question is how does the H&L team explain the exhumation? Do they think "Harvey" was dug up and "Lee's" head attached to "Harvey's" body? And how was this accomplished? That would also get rid of "Lee" although Armstrong has always said he could still be alive. But what of CD 985? A head switch wouldn't explain that. Do they agree with Jack White who said on the JFK Research forum there were multiple "Harveys"? These issues need to be addressed as they kill H&L as it stands today.

Hate to break up Jim's conversation with himself here! Fantastic idea from Vanessa Loney today over at DPF. She is proposing a debate between John Armstrong himself and Greg Parker. Now, that would be a debate! Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen because Armstrong would not agree. BTW, good to see Jim & DJ back.

Yes as Bernie said, you and Hargrove and DJ were counted in the beginning. See post #42. So its 16-6.

I have read the book, but I wouldn't claim to have looked at every single document.

Steve, I was just calling attention to a post by an ex-member Mark Valenti describing what he feels are problems with the H&L theory in regards to the conspiracy community as a whole. I personally doubt that anyone who posts pro-H&L material is being paid to do so, but I respect Valenti's opinions.

Steve Gaal said: .......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL LIE PAID & paid TO POST ?? gee forum rule violation ?? GAAL As I have said for years Steve, I am acting on my own accord for my own reasons (I believe in what I am doing) and am paid by no one. I am a little disappointed that you have made this allegation without proof since I though you and I got along ok here.

At the DPF Jim Hargrove said Sure, Tracy, and this is the kind of balance any mature researcher without a hidden agenda would adopt. In a 1,000+ page book filled with as much info as H&L, there are bound to be some mistakes. How could there not be? But what is going on over at EF strikes me as going far beyond personal differences and disagreements over facts. It strikes me as a professional disinfo campaign, which begs the question, What has John Armstrong uncovered that requires a response like that? John is currently revising an article on the Steven Landesberg affair, and it is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous to the status quo as the rest of H&L. When it's done, and it's nearly there, I'm hoping EF will feel compelled to erupt in some sort of nuclear way, not just the usual panties in a twist snits. Should be fun! Of course I have an agenda Jim, I disagree with the H&L theory and have for years. I can't say with 100 percent certainty there was no conspiracy in the JFK case. But I know for certain the H&L theory didn't happen because of the exhumation and other evidence. Its not just errors in the book that bother me-you notice I don't mention typos etc. Take the most recent thing, the Orvie Aucoin error which Gary Mack pointed out. Armstrong makes this big thing about how everyone connected to the leafleting incident and the WDSU interviews was either FBI or CIA. Then he has this list to prove his point and it looks to me like he put Aucoin on the list even though he knows he was not the cameraman. I can't see any other reason since he mentions Rush in other parts of the book. In other words, it looks like a deliberate distortion rather than a simple mistake. He insists everyone (he has this underlined on one page and underlined and italicized on the other) was CIA/FBI so he includes Aucoin to make his point even though he apparently knows better. This is summarized on my page: http://wtracyparnell.com/orvie-aucoin/ As far as a professional disinfo campaign, I have had these unfounded charges placed against me since the beginning. I am just a semi-retired guy in my pajamas doing what I think is right. Who do you think is funding me? I was just finishing my response to Armstrong but he is writing another article on Landesberg if I read you right so I guess I will wait to see that. My main question is why you and DJ have left here? I felt that we had a good debate going. I certainly have nothing personal against you or DJ. I think you are both smart guys but you are being run by a puppet master.

Well, Tracy, I want to thank you for your energetic efforts here on the EF. I agree with your assessment of H&L, which I regard as a mind-game, mocking its very readers. The ultimate result (intended or not) is to mock all JFK Research. Sadly, some of the mockery is deserved, especially at the point where Anderson pushes, namely, the CIA-did-it theory, which is the most common CT of all (including such luminaries as Lane, Garrison, Weisberg, Marrs, Newman, Scott). It seems to me, however, that the H&L detour will be the last stage of the CIA-did-it theory, and anyway, it will all be laid to rest by 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act deadline is reached. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Thanks for your kind words. One question about the 2017 documents while I'm thinking of it. Didn't the ARRB say they had seen all of the JFK documents and there is nothing indicating conspiracy there. Does this refer to the 2017 documents in your view or I am I off in my thinking here? I would appreciate your comments.

It seems that much of the H&L talk has moved over to DPF. For example, our own Dawn Meredith said: And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L. For the record, I never wrote anything "glowing" about H&L. I wrote a couple of letters to Armstrong to feel him out although I had a pretty good idea what he was about. He replied to me in a very courteous manner, which I appreciated and I told him that. He offered some suggestions on research and of course tried to steer me to his way of thinking. This was in 1997 when you could not find everything on the Internet like you can now. But all of my public writings, articles, forum posts, etc. have been critical.

Posted by Mark Valenti at Duncan MacRae's forum: Picking up on a theory offered by G reg P arker, the whole Harvey and Lee debacle feels less like a sincere research project and more like a Trojan horse designed to upend serious efforts, and sow serious discord within the research community. Created by independently wealthy John Armstrong, who somehow has the means to travel the world in the pursuit of information he can use to further his mission, the book and its devoted followers routinely offer ridiculously circuitous data, distracting side issues, unprovable theories and a loosely constructed narrative that can safely be called cringe-worthy by most rational thinkers. Armstrong's followers are passionate in an almost ecstatically religious manner; they devote hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours to its promotion and protection. The theory - wherein Cold War era spies raised two young boys from different continents who looked alike, for nefarious future purposes - has never gained serious traction in the mainstream press. But if it ever does, it will surely spell the end of any kind of respect that researchers may have gained over the decades. The entire community will collapse like Tower 7, and the Warren Report will rise to a permanent throne of respectability. Here are some interesting statements from Major Ed Rouse Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it. Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is simply learning everything about your target enemy, their beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations. Psychological operations may be defined broadly as the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior ... to create in target groups behavior, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives. The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia. There can be no greater harm done to the JFK research community than to sow discord within and position it as a laughingstock from without. Harvey and Lee does both, in spades. It is a well-funded, religiously-promoted, in-your-face theory with extremely energetic and pugnacious defenders willing to spread the gospel as far as possible. If it ever truly moves out of the shadowy fringes and into daylight, it's curtains for any meaningful chance to gain access to those still-hidden government files. Any request coming from the JFK community will be laughed out of court.

13-5.

Citing fiction in defense of fiction. So says the expert on fiction... 12-6 12-5, I already counted you, Hargrove and Gaal in the beginning. My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything: Pro-H&L Hargrove Josephs Gaal Blank Mitcham Against-H&L Parker Parnell Sorensen Graves Brancato Kamp Loney Kinaski Tidd Carroll Laverick Speer Can't Tell Healy

Steve, My point is there is nothing in the source Hargrove cites about a team. The book seems to show a belief in one Landesberg who Sanders/Fowler believe was the actor (which it was not). They also believe the FBI and there was no Oswald. So it doesn't say what he says it does. If he wants to speculate he can, but there is no basis for it based on his source. I talked to an expert on 60's radical politics while working on my article and he mentioned the Sanders/Fowler/Landesberg thing to me, so I included it in my article endnotes as an example of a documented account of Landesberg posing as L'Eandes. I am going to have to go back and edit that to reflect the fact that Fowler thought it was the actor which lessens the veracity of the report to me.

Not by my reading of the book. It is clear that Sanders thinks the actor and agitator were one and the same person, which they were not-Armstrong disproved that theory himself. From the Sanders book: By November 29, the FBI office in NYC sent out a notice that the investigation was to cease. They had learned by then that Rizzuto, the original source to radio host Barry Gray, and L’Eandes and Landesberg were one and the same! Steve Landesberg later became a well-known television comedian, starring on the “Barney Miller”sitcom, and why he claimed that Oswald had disrupted political meetings in Greenwich Village remains a mystery. So it appears to me that Sanders believes the FBI was right that Landesberg/L'Eandes/Rizzuto were the same person and that person was the actor Landesberg. He also doesn't seem to buy the Oswald stuff. Nothing about a "team" here.

12-4.

Jim Hargrove said: Assassination researcher Joachim Joesten was intersted in the Landesberg case years before John Armstrong was. Here's an excerpt: Now I know where Armstrong got 90 percent of his Landesberg stuff!

That makes 9-4.

Not in a while, no.

BTW, while I'm thinking of it, David Josephs is asking "what about Alice TX, what about people who saw Ruby & Oswald." I saw a report on the men that broke out of prison in upstate NY. They have had over 800 people call in with tips and sightings even in that little rural area. How many of those do you think really happened? How about maybe as few as zero since Cuomo admitted they may be in Mexico for all he knows.

Jim Hargrove said: Still waiting for a full answer! My answer is that anyone can say anything. Palmer McBride and Wulf and Faircloth can say what they want. And you can tell me what great people they are and you would be right I am sure. And they may believe they are telling the truth, but the documentation proves otherwise IMO. Now having said this, I will be doing what I can as I have time to refute as much as I can as an ongoing project. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

Jim Hargrove said: The evening of the assassination McBride told Air Force security officers that he had worked with Oswald in 1957-58. He told the same thing to the FBI (CE1386). And you think he did this for attention? No, of course not. His initial comments were simply in error. The attention stuff came later after Armstrong got a hold of him. And, of course, there is always the current president of the Pfisterer Dental Lab, Linda Faircloth Yes, she was another of the people recruited in Armstrong's "witness recruitment program". Each of the owners of the company, and each employee, was taken into a private room and warned not to mention or discuss Oswald with anyone at any time. Prove it, and when you can do that take it to Morley. Now, Tracy, we look forward to you providing a single document (or even more) to confirm the basis of any reply you may care to make. It may be easier for you to just use your imagination to debunk the preceding. That's easy, the tax documents that show when Oswald worked at Pfisterers and when he was in the service do that nicely. Those same documents forced Armstrong to say they were faked. BTW, I'm still waiting for the citation on Aucoin. If I don't hear anything, I'll have to assume there is none and I'll reflect my webpage accordingly: http://wtracyparnell.com/orvie-aucoin/

Jim Hargrove wrote: Tracey, you are the one who changed topics. This thread is about HARVEY and LEE, not about a 2nd cameraman who photographed Oswald. John Pic's WC testimony that the man handing out FPCC literature was not his brother is central to the HARVEY and LEE thread. Would you care to discuss and try to debunk Pic's testimony? So me pointing out an error in the book Harvey & Lee is off the topic of Harvey & Lee? Fine Jim if you say so. I have commented on Pic before-he did not say it was not his brother, only that he could not recognize him from that particular photo. Paul Trejo gives a very good list of explanations. While I have you here Jim, could you provide a citation for the claim that Aucoin was an FBI informant? I am not saying it is not true, just that I can't find it anywhere.

I agree. What sort of intel operation would Harvey and Lee be, Jon? What precedent similar operations are there? I can answer that-there is absolutely no precedent for the type of operation Armstrong describes.